SirMustapha wrote:The alt-text to this comic is not a "joke", it's not "humourous"; it's a deliberate, mean-spirit insult
SirMustapha wrote:Well, guess what, Randall? Maybe your distaste for the human side of science is why your job at NASA lasted only six months, not? Maybe your sick obsession with maths and computers and the "real sciences" are what make you an individual that's only notorious because there are a few people willing to buy your T-shirts, not? Think about it: you got kicked from NASA and conformed to sticking to a rigid routine of three-comics-a-week and selling T-shirts (while preaching that people should try new, unexpected things and make their life a funny, sexy "adventure"). YOU ARE NOT A SCIENTIST. You are not an intelligent, considerate individual. You're a disgrace to science: you're contributing to give it the air of arrogance and self-obsession that the common folk think science is full of. You're a display of the worst things about science, and your gratuitous, unfunny insults only show what a pathetic, miserable human being you are
Can you confirm whether or not you have a sense of irony?
Somewhat off-topic but... can you tell me for sure that a factual statement is either true or untrue? Or "A set is a set." How do you argue that that's true?Simetrical wrote:No, no, it's really not. It's something anyone can see for himself. Something called a "proof". Such that when you see the proof, you understand for yourself why it must be correct, and there is no other possibility. It's not a fancy anything, and epistemology has nothing to do with it.
Maybe this says more about my school than about math majors, but it seems like most math GRAD students at my school come in without really knowing how to do a real rigorous proof, and leave without really knowing how to do a real rigorous proof. It's unfortunate, but they seem to memorize the proofs instead, without really understanding how to adapt it to prove something that isn't superficially similar. And they would LOVE having computation problems (computation problems? in MY grad math classes?).Simetrical wrote:However, an undergraduate course on logic (we were not talking about doctoral research or anything) targeted at philosophy majors will not require anywhere the same level of rigor as an undergraduate course on logic targeted at math majors. I'm quite sure of this, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested to know.